Business owners all around the nation have the right to refuse service to anyone that they believe is an endangerment to their customers and to their establishment. Nonetheless, business owners and employees are not allowed to discriminate against people based on certain identities.
The protected classes in the United States are the following: race or color, national origin or citizenship status, religion or creed, sex, age, disability, pregnancy or genetic formation, and veteran status.
Under the Federal Law, the United States as a whole does not regard members of the LGBTQ+ as a protected class. However, the Washington state has added sexual orientation, gender identity, and gender expression as a protected class in their individual state.
This is where it becomes complicated in the case of Ingersoll v. Arlene's Flowers of 2013.
Barronelle Stutzman is the owner of Arlene's Flowers, a flower shop that has been running for many years and has assisted in the celebration of numerous weddings and other special ceremonies.
Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed have been faithful clients of Arlene’s Flowers for nine years. Over the years Ingersoll would order flowers bouquets for his then-boyfriend Freed. Stutzman was aware that Ingersoll was in a gay relationship and that the flowers arrangements were for romantic occasions such as anniversaries and Valentines Day.
On March 1st, 2013 Ingersoll visited Arlene’s Flowers to inquire about buying sticks or twigs for his wedding. However, Stutzman denied Ingersoll of his request before he even asked. Stutzman explained that it would be against her Christian beliefs to support and endorse a same-sex marriage ceremony. Stutzman then kindly recommended other floral shops to him despite her not being able to be his florist.
In the state of Washington, Ingersoll and Freed are a part of the protected class, as they both identify as gay men. The lawsuit of Ingersoll v. Arlene's Flowers, is based on the grounds of discrimination per the Anti-Discrimination laws of the state of Washington.
Stutzman argues that this lawsuit goes against the First Amendment of the United States.
The First Amendment enacts the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause. Stutzman feels as though she is being sued against her right to practice the beliefs of her religion. It is important to keep in mind that the Free Exercise Clause protects religious beliefs, not actions.
The Supreme Court of Washington of Benton County found Stutzman guilty of discriminating against Ingersoll and Freed. Benton County Supreme Court Justice Alexander Ekstrom declared in his concluding remark that “the Washington State Constitution expressly states that religiously motivated conduct is limited by the police power of the state.” Ingersoll v. Arlene's Flowers,U.S.13, 59 (2013).
The State decided that Stutzman's actions, though based on her religion, cannot be protected for religion is not above the law.
However, it would be interesting to compare the case of Ingersoll v. Arlene's Flowers with the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette of 1943. In the case of West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, it was decided that the school children in the West Virginia State who identified as Jehovah’s Witnesses did not have to salute the American flag during the Pledge of Allegiance. For it goes against their religious text to pledge allegiance to a flag, a symbol, and image of the state, that is not associated with their God. The children, like Stutzman are not committing an action but they are neglecting to act. As the children fail to salute the American flag, Stutzman fails to give service to the two LGBTQ+ identifying citizens.
It is worthwhile to think of where we draw the line for citizens to use the Free Exercise Clause. When can we and can’t we use our religious beliefs as a valid argument?
Some may argue that the defining line is business, due to it being a public service that must remain open to every law abiding citizen. Stutzman’s business must abide by the Washington State Consumer Protection Act and the Washington State Law Against Discrimination.
Nevertheless, not too long ago was another business confronted with a similar situation.
In the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission of 2018, the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop, Jack C. Phillips, neglected to make a weddding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins, two gay men. Craig and Mullins sued on the same discriminatory basis that Ingersoll and Freed did. Yet, unlike the Ingersoll case, Craig and Mullins did not win their lawsuit. The Colorado Supreme Court decided that Phillip’s actions reflect his belief and that it would be unconstitutional to force him to decorate a cake for two gay men.
In these two cases we see how different state courts prioritize different parts of the constitution. The Washington State Supreme Court enforces that actions based on religious beliefs inherently goes against the original intention of the Free Exercise Clause. Whereas the Colorado State Supreme Court imposes that actions are justified by their religious beliefs. What we should take into consideration is how these cases would’ve been resulted if Stutzman lived in Colorado and Phillips in Washington. Is there unity in the United States if two cases that are very similar in nature end in opposing verdicts?
Well that is what Stutzman is currently fighting for now. After the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Stutzman wants to bring her case to the Supreme Court of the United States, away from the Washington State.
I believe that Stutzman has a valid argument and case. Even though she did provide a service to Ingersoll in the past, it is not equivalent to supporting his marriage through venue decorations. If Phillips, who also lives in a state where sexual orientation is a protected class, is able to win his case then why can't Stutzman? Does she not live in the same country with the same rights?
That is the real question.
I think that Ingersoll is valid in winning this case because sexual orientation is a protected class in Washington state. The establishment clause clearly states that it protects beliefs, not actions, therefore in this case, the protected clause must come before the beliefs of a religion. To do otherwise would be to prioritize Stutzman's religious beliefs over the protected class law in general. I understand the complications of this case when comparing it to the Colorado case and the issue of a grey area. However, I feel that these two cases prove that the federal government and/or Supreme Court should make a decision for all states surrounding what is prioritized and at what stages as it clearly is becoming a contradictory issue.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Zoe. The free establishment clause protects religious beliefs, but not all actions resulting from them. Stutzman may have a believe that is against condoning gay marriage, but civil anti-discrimination laws should reign supreme in this case. The reasoning behind this is stated in the post; business is a public good, and access should not be removed from anyone, no matter the beliefs of the owner of the shop. I am very interested to see if the Supreme Court will take a case like this to determine the gray areas between religious beliefs and actions.
ReplyDeleteI found Evelin’s post regarding Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers extremely interesting because the constitutional issue at hand is not LGBTQ discrimination, but about religious freedom. The question here is; does forcing private business owners to provide a service that violates religious beliefs violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the decision at the state level only due to the Washington Law Against Discrimination, which prohibits businesses from refusing the sell goods, and service to any person because of their sexual orientation. However, if the case makes it to the Supreme Court, I believe the court will side with Arlene’s Flowers. The precedent set in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette stated that it was a violation of freedom to exercise religion to force somebody to act against a religious belief.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI would like to disagree with Zoe and Nathan. Because this case is regarding a religious ceremony not a secular holiday or event, I believe Arlene’s Flowers is acting within her religious freedom. In many sects of Christianity, gay marriage is viewed as a sinful act. Additionally, many Christians feel that enabling sin is equally sinful (2 Thessalonians 3:14). For this reason, if you require someone to support a sinful act, you are requiring them to sin against their god. Relating this to another case, this is the distinction made between positive and negative acts in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette. As Evelin said Stutzman is not committing an action but neglecting to act.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Evelin's post for the reasons she and Will mentioned, specifically, that Stutzman's right to practice her religion should give her the right to deny Ingersoll, particularly because there are other alternatives that Ingersoll could use. In addition, I take issue with the assumption that individuals and their businesses necessary have to serve anyone that wants their services. While I believe it is wrong to deny someone business based on protected classes, I think an argument can be made for the right to deny someone service based on whatever criteria the business owner chooses, since individuals own themselves and their businesses, not the state.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Evelin and her reasoning within her post. Because his identity is a protected class under the state of Washington, he is being discriminated against in this situation. I disagree with the comments that mention that she has the right to access services because of the fact that this is a protected class under the government. This case is a clear situation in which the separation between church and state is not transparent, because the government has more power because it is ensuring that its citizens are safe. This raises the question of safety and beliefs. Should members of religions be allowed to discriminate against groups if their religion allows it?
ReplyDeleteThis is an extremely interesting case. I do agree that everyone should have the right to turn down service if they do not wish to, but in this case where Ingersoll and Freed are protected under the Washington Anti-Discrimination laws, then Stutzman should not be able to discriminate. This is a very tough case to look into though since in other states this law is different and that there have been many similar cases to this one where they have been decided in the opposite way. I agree with Bess in the sense where if this case was brought to the Supreme Court, that Stutzman would win because of the laws across the whole country.
ReplyDeleteThe comparisons made between these two cases is very interesting, especially seeing the difference between how different states handle issues of religious and and sexual orientation differences. I think it is also important to bring up whether it is more important to protect religious rights or protect those in the LBGTQ+ community. I do not believe that either one is more important than the other. However, the constitution explicitly states that people in this country have a right to free practice of religion. Whereas the same document does not have explicit protection for members of the LBGTQ+ community.
ReplyDeleteI think it is so interesting to see how very similar cases can end with different results based on the make up of the court. That is one factor that makes these cases so difficult because interpretation of the first amendment is the issue here, and depending on who is doing the interpreting, the results could vary. Stutzman's decision to not offer service to someone based on religious belief is not justified in my opinion because that would allow belief to become more powerful than the law, and the law protects people from harm.
ReplyDelete